If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

as r tends to infinity the quantity will TEND to zero, but still exist. it is infinitesimally small and practically irrelevant, but gravity never fully dissipates.

what i wonder is if there were two objects in the universe, one large at the center and one small one at the very end of the universe, would that infinitesimal gravity be enough to begin pulling it in?

"I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
"What else?" said the secretary.

as g tends to infinity the quantity will TEND to zero, but still exist. it is infinitesimally small and practically irrelevant, but gravity never fully dissipates.

what i wonder is if there were two objects in the universe, one large at the center and one small one at the very end of the universe, would that infinitesimal gravity be enough to begin pulling it in?

are they the only two objects in the universe? how far apart are they? how big is the universe? it depends on a lot of things

besides the universe doesnt really have a 'center'. its hard to explain but its kinda like the surface of a balloon that is constantly expanding. the balloon doesnt expand from a single particular point; the particles in the balloon just keep constantly moving away from each other.

besides the universe doesnt really have a 'center'. its hard to explain but its kinda like the surface of a balloon that is constantly expanding. the balloon doesnt expand from a single particular point; the particles in the balloon just keep constantly moving away from each other.

But I can't stand this. I believe that you an indeed go outiside the universe and look in you you would a galaxy.The notion that you can't see the universe like that becuase if you did you would have to leave the universe and go into a empty void of nothingness where you can't exist is gibberish.

We only give the universe a center because that's the only way we can comprehend it. I'm sure if you went outside the universe you probably wouldn't be able to see it because it would be infinitely large.

the universe can't be expressed in infinity, for then nothing in the universe has any actual place in it. there is no distance, location, limit, or direction in base infinity. it wasn't until people came along and thought up a rational measurement to describe how important they must be to the universe to have an actual distance from one radii to another in the earth's viewpoint (yottameter).

god is less interested in earth as we might want to believe, i'm sure.

We only give the universe a center because that's the only way we can comprehend it. I'm sure if you went outside the universe you probably wouldn't be able to see it because it would be infinitely large.

The univers is not infinitely large. Its very huge but not infinite. Astronomers say if you try to go outside the universe you would somehow curve back in due to how the space time fabric is.

you cant go outside the universe. at least not in the traditional sense like for example taking a theoretical rocket that travels at an exponential of the speed of light and magically popping out of the universe like its a bubble. space time and the universe itself are curved unto themselves. again, consider the balloon example. if you start at a point on the balloon and travel in a straight line eventually youll end up back where you started. the universe is pretty much the same; its curved like the surface of the balloon so if you do travel by that rocket in a straight path you will ultimately find yourself back at the place you started. its just hard to visualise in three dimensions.

you cant go outside the universe. at least not in the traditional sense like for example taking a theoretical rocket that travels at an exponential of the speed of light and magically popping out of the universe like its a bubble. space time and the universe itself are curved unto themselves. again, consider the balloon example. if you start at a point on the balloon and travel in a straight line eventually youll end up back where you started. the universe is pretty much the same; its curved like the surface of the balloon so if you do travel by that rocket in a straight path you will ultimately find yourself back at the place you started. its just hard to visualise in three dimensions.

the universe is not a balloon, its empty space in between objects that expands forever in 3 dimensions. there is no end nor beginning. the identification of relative objects in this empty space defines the universe. measurements are nothing but ways to identify these objects from one another.

all the universe is a load of objects that have undefined and constantly changing distances from one another. thats all. its not a bubble, its not a gigantic radius in existence, its a simple idea that all existence is infinitely expandable, and thats why quantum physics (as a reality) is complete donkey shit.

it works as a way to rationally explain the infinitely small, and infinitely large, but it has no real-world value to explain the existence of non-existence, and its "size".

and space time is exactly what i was portraying. the displacement of objects that constantly change in an infinite three dimensional plain. there is no end to it, because non-existence can only end when something else exists in that specific space, but beyond that, unless that existence is infinitely large, there must still be nonexistence beyond it.

Couple of things I picked up on my way in and want to answer or whatever:

1) I think this universe began as an expansion from a previous contraction. How that happened, I have no idea. Maybe if we can work out how to see beyond the beginning of the universe we'll find out.

2) I think it's possible that life was started on this planet by time travellers. Come back, throw in a few basic DNA molecules and let natural selection get on with it.

3) If there was nothing to get in the way, nothing that could exert a force on anything except for two bodies acting on each other by gravitational forces, then distance is no object. Even the tiniest force would produce an acceleration, although you would be unlike to observe it for an absurdly long time.

I think not, Pants. The Big Bang Theory may currently lack an explanation as to how the matter got there, but it explains what happened afterwards and what's happening now. Does anything else that fits the evidence? No. No it doesn't. So unless you're going to come up with a better explanation, sit down and shut up. Science works. Deal with it.

God (of your choice) created an ever-expanding infinite plain of matter, or all matter has been in a flow of a constant kinetic energy through space for an eternity before now.

energy never dissipates. it just enters into something else, you know. so what energy would have caused a big bang? what materials would have gathered to cause it? what potential energy was in the object? and (this is the one that always got me) how does the universe we know of move in more than just a direction that leads away from the blast radius if nothing was in the theorized "empty space" to stop any of the debris (galaxies etc.) along their path?